keeps you connected across the coal world

Submit Your Articles
We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining, shipping, etc.

To Submit your article please click here.

International Energy Events

WTI Crude Oil

BRENT Crude Oil

Search News
Latest CoalNews Headlines
Sunday, 05 January 20
In recent years the shipping industry has faced a significant number of bunker quality claims, most notably arising out of the so-called "Houston problem", where there were numerous complaints that contaminated fuel had caused engine problems, including sludge blocking fuel filters and the sticking and seizure of fuel injection components. In the most serious cases, there were reports of vessel blackouts and groundings. The global impact of shipping problems was also evident; whilst complaints regarding the "Houston problem" were originally concentrated around the US Gulf region, complaints regarding off-specification fuel quickly spread across the globe, including to Panama and Singapore. 
With the IMO 2020 sulphur cap now in force as of 1 January 2020, the shipping industry faces a new set of potential issues regarding bunker quality. Given that a significant number of vessels have not been fitted with exhaust gas cleaning systems or “scrubbers” (enabling the vessels to consume high sulphur fuels in compliance with the new limits in MARPOL Annex VI), there is increased demand for low sulphur fuel, and prices have risen accordingly.
However, concerns have been raised about the quality of some blends of low sulphur fuels, and in particular, the potential impact on vessels which may not have implemented comprehensive fuel management procedures to store and consume low sulphur fuel.
Owing to different fuel blends, the compositions and properties of low sulphur fuel on the market can vary widely. Experts have raised concerns about the level of catalytic fines (catfines) which can often be at relatively high levels in non-distillate low sulphur fuels, owing to the refining processes and blends with cutter stock to reduce sulphur content. If catfines levels are high and/or vessels do not have adequate purifiers in operation, then these small, hard particles can embed in soft metal surfaces in fuel pumps, injectors and cylinder lines in engines, and act as an abrasive, dramatically increasing the rate of wear of engine components, with the risk of wear beyond maximum limits occurring in weeks.  
Concerns have also been raised about the stability levels of blended low sulphur fuel, and the risk that asphaltene content may precipitate out of solution, causing the formation of sludge which can block engine filters and pipes, leading to the potential loss of power and propulsion.
There are also numerous potential issues which could arise with the enforcement of the lower sulphur limits in MARPOL Annex VI, which could result in legal claims. Potential claims could arise where the MARPOL bunker sample tests on specification, but other samples when tested, generate results which narrowly exceed the prescribed 0.50% m/m limit. From 1 March 2020, vessels without scrubbers will not be permitted to carry fuel over the 0.50% m/m limit, leading to potential enforcement action against such vessels and disputes between Owners and Charterers regarding any losses arising out of such enforcement action. Disputes may also arise where Port State Control obtain their own bunker samples from bunker tanks but these test off-specification due to high sulphur content. In such cases, a vessel may be detained and/or forced to debunker by the authorities.
Where there are complaints about bunker quality, a number of potential legal claims could arise between different parties concerned with the bunker supply. Disputes between Owners and Time Charterers concerning bunker quality regularly occur, and we expect that the impact of IMO 2020 will lead to an overall increase in the number of these disputes. There may also be an increase in the number of claims by bunker purchasers against bunker traders and suppliers, as well as claims by vessel Owners under H&M policies, if there is an increase in the number of reports of engine damage.
This article (the first in a two-part series) focuses on some the key legal issues that can arise under charterparties in relation to bunker quality claims.
Charterparty claims between Owners and Time Charterers concerning bunker quality
A. Charterers' obligations in respect of bunker quality
It is widely accepted that, in the absence of any special conditions, Time Charterers will be under an "absolute" obligation to provide bunkers that are of reasonable general quality and suitable for the type of engines on the vessel. In practice, most charterparties also include express requirements stipulating the grade and type of fuel to be supplied, referable to one of the recent ISO 8217 standards. Given the "absolute" obligation, Charterers will not be able to avoid liability for the supply of bad quality fuel to a vessel by contending they have used reputable suppliers; Charterers are under an obligation to ensure that all fuel bunkered is suitable for consumption by a reasonably well maintained vessel.
In any event, in the absence of express provisions, a vessel Owner could argue that Charterers are under an implied obligation to source bunkers which are "fit for the purpose intended". This is likely to have a degree of overlap with the requirement under clause 5.3 of ISO 8217 that fuel should be "free of any material that renders a fuel unacceptable for use in marine applications".
However, Charterers will not be obliged to meet any unusual requirements of the vessel's engines, unless those requirements have been brought to Charterers’ attention (generally through specifying in the charterparty any requirements that need to be met in terms of fuel).
One of the key issues that may arise concern with bunker fuel in 2020 is whether any engine damage suffered is primarily caused by poor quality fuel supplied by Charterers in breach of charterparty requirements, or primarily caused by factors that are Owners' responsibility; such as maintenance of the engines, or fuel management practices.
B. Bunker quality claims by Owners against Charterers
Claims for engine damage
In order to successfully advance a claim against Charterers for engine damage, Owners will need to overcome two key hurdles. Firstly, Owners will need to prove that Charterers supplied bunkers to the vessel which were in breach of their obligations in respect of bunker quality. Secondly, Owners will need to prove that the fuel supplied by Charterers caused the engine damage alleged.
Owners often experience difficulties discharging the burden of proof in relation to this second hurdle. Following notification of engine damage, Charterers may allege that the fuel supplied did not cause the engine problems alleged, or alternatively, Owners' management of the vessel (at least in part) contributed to the engine damage. Charterers, may for example, assert that bunkers supplied under a previous charterparty may have caused the damage alleged, Owners had not maintained the engine properly, incompatible fuels had been mixed (causing the bunkers to become unstable) or that Owners otherwise had improper fuel management procedures which caused, or contributed to, the engine damage.
When such disputes arise, the outcome will largely depend on the quality of the evidence, and in particular, whether a party is able to rely on evidence which supports their account of the damage. For this reason, it is important that if engine damage is alleged to have been the result of bad quality bunkers, that the evidence is gathered at an early stage – with surveyors inspecting the engine, samples of the fuel being taken, any damaged components being preserved for analysis, and all relevant documentary records (including but not limited to log books, alarm records, oil record books and maintenance records) concerning the vessel being retained. This evidence will need to be considered, together with the results of sample analysis.
If, following tests on samples, Owners are unable to identify a contaminant in the fuel supplied by Charterers, it will likely be difficult for Owners to discharge the burden of (i) showing that the fuel supplied was off-specification and (ii) that the fuel was the cause of the alleged engine damage.
A further defence that Charterers may seek to rely on in cases where it is determined that off-specification bunkers were supplied to a vessel is to assert that Owners are under a duty to mitigate their losses, and not to exacerbate any damage by continuing to burn bunkers. If the vessel continues to consume bunkers which Owners suspect to be contaminated, notwithstanding concerns about engine damage, then Charterers may be able to argue that any further damage suffered as a result of fuel consumption after initial concerns of damage became apparent are Owners' responsibility.
Claims where the fuel has not yet been consumed
If Owners have received test results indicating that the fuel supplied by Charterers is off-specification, and there are risks to the vessel in consuming such fuel, then Owners will be placed in a difficult position. As mentioned above, the burden will be on Owners to mitigate their losses. Whilst Owners can demand Charterers debunker off-specification fuel supplied to the vessel, and supply replacement bunkers, there is no guarantee that Charterers will comply with such a demand, particularly if the bunker supplier refuses to re-supply the vessel. Given the burden on Owners to mitigate their losses, it would also be worthwhile Owners establishing whether any options are available that would enable the fuel to be consumed safely (such as blending or incorporating additives to fuel). However, depending on the circumstances, if it is not possible for the vessel to safely consume the fuel, and Charterers have refused to debunker, it may prudent for Owners to carry out debunkering at first instance, and subsequently advance a claim against Charterers for any losses they incur.
Sampling and testing issues
The samples taken at the time of the bunker supply are of critical importance, given that testing of these samples can indicate whether the fuel supplied is off-specification or not (although some contaminants are only identifiable with advanced GC/MS testing). Moreover, the samples taken are key to the outcome of any subsequent bunker quality dispute. It is therefore important that Owners ensure that the samples taken are representative of the product supplied, with it being desirable for Owners to ensure that samples are taken at the vessel’s manifold by drip sample, rather than on the bunker barge. 
Results of different samples tested can vary, and this can give rise to the scope for dispute. In particular, in addition to the natural variation in test results, regrettably, the shipping industry has faced problems where unscrupulous bunker suppliers knowingly supply off-specification fuel to vessels, and attempt to mask this through providing false samples of the fuel supplied. The best way for Owners and operators to avoid the risk of this is to insist on fully witnessed sampling at the vessel manifold. This will greatly assist Owners in identifying and dealing with any bunker quality issues that could arise, and protect their position against Time Charterers (if Charterers supplied the fuel) or against bunker traders or suppliers (if Owners contracted with the bunker traders or suppliers directly).
IMO 2020 raises further issues regarding the fuel carried on vessels. With the 1 January 2020 implementation deadline having passed, the consumption of high sulphur fuel without a scrubber is prohibited. On 1 March 2020, vessels without scrubbers will no longer be able to carry non-compliant fuel. If a vessel does not have a scrubber, Owners will wish to ensure that any fuel supplied does not risk the vessel facing potential enforcement action, and that any residual high sulphur fuel in the vessel’s tanks does not push any fuel supplied above the 0.50% m/m limit.
Conclusions - considering possible future impacts
Whilst the key deadline of 1 January 2020 has passed, the full ramifications of the IMO 2020 sulphur cap have yet to be fully felt. In the coming weeks and months, the enforcement steps taken by States against non-compliant vessels will be witnessed. In addition, the shipping industry will be able to see whether the concerns regarding an increase in the consumption of low sulphur fuel will lead to an increase in reports of engine problems.
The key steps that vessel Owners and operators can take to protect their position regarding the supply of bunkers are to ensure that full and proper sampling takes place at the time of supply, and if any issues are later found to arise, to gather all evidence regarding the supply so as to assist in defending any enforcement action from States and to preserve any rights of recourse that may exist against the Time Charterers or bunker suppliers.
Written by Paul Collier

Part 2 of this series will consider the legal issues arising out of bunker supply contracts. 

Ik Wei Chong, Partner / Managing Director, Asia
Leon Alexander, Partner
Paul Collier, Senior Associate
About Clyde & Co
Clyde & Co is a dynamic, rapidly expanding global law firm focused on providing a complete legal service to clients in our core sectors. Clyde & Co advises businesses that are at the heart of worldwide commerce and trade. Clyde & Co combinations of sector expertise, commercial attitude and in-depth regional understanding provides a unique perspective.

If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.

Recent News

Wednesday, 24 June 20
The World Bank estimates that the global economy will fall by 5.2% this year, underlining that the Covid-19 pandemic has had rapid and massive cons ...

Tuesday, 23 June 20
COVID-19 has not only impacted the energy industry’s revenues but also its infrastructure development. The delay of new natural gas ...

Tuesday, 23 June 20
Output of raw coal in China rose 0.9 percent year on year to 1.47 billion tonnes in the first five months of this year, official data showed. & ...

Monday, 22 June 20
Capesize The Capesize market trajectory this week has been one of the steepest rallies the sector has experienced. Opening at $12,410, the sect ...

Saturday, 20 June 20
Crude Oil Price Movements Spot crude oil prices rebounded in May from low levels registered a month earlier, as physical market fundamentals im ...

   3 4 5 6 7   
Showing 21 to 25 news of total 5994
News by Category
Popular News
Total Members : 26,978
User ID
Remember Me
By logging on you accept our TERMS OF USE.
Forgot Password
Our Members Are From ...

  • Cargill India Pvt Ltd
  • APGENCO India
  • Maersk Broker
  • Videocon Industries ltd - India
  • Baramulti Group, Indonesia
  • Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
  • Samsung - South Korea
  • Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
  • Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
  • GMR Energy Limited - India
  • Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
  • International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
  • Commonwealth Bank - Australia
  • Ministry of Mines - Canada
  • Coaltrans Conferences
  • Adani Power Ltd - India
  • IOL Indonesia
  • European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
  • Heidelberg Cement - Germany
  • WorleyParsons
  • Gupta Coal India Ltd
  • ACC Limited - India
  • Geoservices-GeoAssay Lab
  • Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
  • SASOL - South Africa
  • Star Paper Mills Limited - India
  • Ministry of Transport, Egypt
  • Inco-Indonesia
  • Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd.
  • Mjunction Services Limited - India
  • Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
  • Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
  • The Treasury - Australian Government
  • UBS Singapore
  • Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
  • World Bank
  • New Zealand Coal & Carbon
  • Carbofer General Trading SA - India
  • CoalTek, United States
  • Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
  • Indian School of Mines
  • Thriveni
  • Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
  • CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
  • Central Electricity Authority - India
  • Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
  • J M Baxi & Co - India
  • Peabody Energy - USA
  • The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
  • Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
  • Coeclerici Indonesia
  • Marubeni Corporation - India
  • Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
  • Berau Coal - Indonesia
  • Shree Cement - India
  • Inspectorate - India
  • JPower - Japan
  • KEPCO - South Korea
  • Gresik Semen - Indonesia
  • Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
  • Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
  • PLN Batubara - Indonesia
  • Malco - India
  • Economic Council, Georgia
  • Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
  • TANGEDCO India
  • Russian Coal LLC
  • Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
  • IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
  • Reliance Power - India
  • PetroVietnam
  • Bank of America
  • Shenhua Group - China
  • Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
  • NTPC Limited - India
  • Indonesian Coal Mining Association
  • Indika Energy - Indonesia
  • Vale Mozambique
  • Xstrata Coal
  • McKinsey & Co - India
  • Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
  • Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
  • Indian Oil Corporation Limited
  • Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
  • Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
  • Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
  • AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
  • Chamber of Mines of South Africa
  • Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
  • Coal Orbis AG
  • SMC Global Power, Philippines
  • KPCL - India
  • Bangkok Bank PCL
  • Thailand Anthracite
  • Anglo American - United Kingdom
  • Coal and Oil Company - UAE
  • Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
  • Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
  • Bhatia International Limited - India
  • Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
  • Thermax Limited - India
  • SUEK AG - Indonesia
  • Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
  • Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
  • Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
  • Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
  • Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
  • SRK Consulting
  • Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
  • MS Steel International - UAE
  • SGS (Thailand) Limited
  • Britmindo - Indonesia
  • Kobe Steel Ltd - Japan
  • Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
  • SMG Consultants - Indonesia
  • SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
  • IMC Shipping - Singapore
  • Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
  • Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
  • Mechel - Russia
  • Surastha Cement
  • Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
  • Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
  • Total Coal South Africa
  • Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
  • TNPL - India
  • Cardiff University - UK
  • Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
  • Mitsubishi Corporation
  • Posco Energy - South Korea
  • Bhushan Steel Limited - India
  • Panama Canal Authority
  • Dalmia Cement Bharat India
  • Vedanta Resources Plc - India
  • Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
  • Platou - Singapore
  • UOB Asia (HK) Ltd
  • LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
  • Indorama - Singapore
  • Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
  • Central Java Power - Indonesia
  • Vitol - Bahrain
  • Glencore India Pvt. Ltd
  • Mitsui
  • Cement Manufacturers Association - India
  • South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
  • Bangladesh Power Developement Board
  • Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
  • GNFC Limited - India
  • Mitra SK Pvt Ltd - India
  • Credit Suisse - India
  • Arutmin Indonesia
  • Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
  • Sojitz Corporation - Japan
  • Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
  • Merrill Lynch Bank
  • Agrawal Coal Company - India
  • GHCL Limited - India
  • Wilmar Investment Holdings
  • KPMG - USA
  • Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
  • Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
  • Petrosea - Indonesia
  • Enel Italy
  • Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
  • TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
  • Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
  • PTC India Limited - India
  • Sical Logistics Limited - India
  • Pinang Coal Indonesia
  • Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
  • Minerals Council of Australia
  • Parry Sugars Refinery, India
  • Thiess Contractors Indonesia
  • Runge Indonesia
  • Xindia Steels Limited - India
  • Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
  • globalCOAL - UK
  • Petron Corporation, Philippines
  • Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
  • Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
  • Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
  • Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
  • Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
  • Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
  • Ince & co LLP
  • Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
  • Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
  • Barclays Capital - USA
  • Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
  • Tanito Harum - Indonesia
  • Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
  • Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
  • Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
  • Parliament of New Zealand
  • PLN - Indonesia
  • GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
  • Indogreen Group - Indonesia
  • Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
  • Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
  • Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
  • Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
  • Mercator Lines Limited - India
  • Deloitte Consulting - India
  • MEC Coal - Indonesia
  • Asian Development Bank
  • Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
  • Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
  • Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
  • Eastern Coal Council - USA
  • Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
  • San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
  • BRS Brokers - Singapore
  • Japan Coal Energy Center
  • Maruti Cements - India
  • Sucofindo - Indonesia
  • Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
  • Asia Cement - Taiwan
  • ANZ Bank - Australia
  • Interocean Group of Companies - India
  • Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
  • Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
  • Georgia Ports Authority, United States
  • Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
  • Aditya Birla Group - India
  • Renaissance Capital - South Africa
  • Bank of China, Malaysia
  • Idemitsu - Japan
  • Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
  • Thomson Reuters GRC
  • Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
  • GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
  • NALCO India
  • Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
  • Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
  • Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
  • Clarksons - UK
  • PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
  • Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
  • Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
  • Deutsche Bank - India
  • The University of Queensland
  • Independent Power Producers Association of India
  • McConnell Dowell - Australia
  • Planning Commission, India
  • Cebu Energy, Philippines
  • Cemex - Philippines
  • RBS Sempra - UK
  • Infraline Energy - India
  • Arch Coal - USA
  • Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
  • Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
  • Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
  • Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
  • Core Mineral Indonesia
  • Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
  • Noble Europe Ltd - UK
  • Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
  • IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
  • World Coal - UK
  • Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
  • OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
  • Coal India Limited
  • BNP Paribas - Singapore
  • DBS Bank - Singapore
  • Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
  • Qatrana Cement - Jordan
  • Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
  • ETA - Dubai
  • Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
  • PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
  • TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
  • Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
  • Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
  • Energy Development Corp, Philippines
  • Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
  • IBC Asia (S) Pte Ltd
  • Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
  • Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
  • Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
  • Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
  • Australian Coal Association
  • Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
  • Singapore Mercantile Exchange
  • Romanian Commodities Exchange
  • Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
  • Tamil Nadu electricity Board
  • GB Group - China
  • Malabar Cements Ltd - India
  • The India Cements Ltd
  • CNBM International Corporation - China
  • White Energy Company Limited
  • ASAPP Information Group - India
  • TRAFIGURA, South Korea
  • Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
  • EMO - The Netherlands
  • U S Energy Resources
  • Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
  • Fearnleys - India
  • JPMorgan - India
  • Medco Energi Mining Internasional
  • Maybank - Singapore
  • Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
  • Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
  • CESC Limited - India
  • Tata Power - India
  • Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
  • India Bulls Power Limited - India
  • Indonesia Power. PT
  • Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
  • Argus Media - Singapore
  • Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
  • CCIC - Indonesia
  • Rudhra Energy - India
  • Lafarge - France
  • Latin American Coal - Colombia
  • KOWEPO - South Korea
  • Humpuss - Indonesia
  • Permata Bank - Indonesia
  • Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
  • GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
  • Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
  • Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
  • Eastern Energy - Thailand
  • Adaro Indonesia
  • Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
  • OCBC - Singapore
  • Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
  • Jatenergy - Australia
  • EIA - United States
  • Moodys - Singapore
  • bp singapore
  • Trasteel International SA, Italy
  • PowerSource Philippines DevCo
  • Freeport Indonesia
  • HSBC - Hong Kong
  • London Commodity Brokers - England
  • Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
  • Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
  • Thai Mozambique Logistica
  • ICICI Bank Limited - India
  • Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
  • Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
  • Edison Trading Spa - Italy
  • Platts
  • Siam City Cement - Thailand
  • Cosco
  • Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
  • Goldman Sachs - Singapore
  • Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
  • VISA Power Limited - India
  • ING Bank NV - Singapore